Since you are trying to first discredit NIST and try to state I don't understand physics.etc, you start the same argument and are not presenting both
sides as always....

This OP is a power point presentation that was given to a room full of people. It is what it is and the first 10 minutes, as I stated, are filled with
garbage. So, since the OP is out of the way, let's start the same old arguments, shall we. I will be happy to answer your questions.....

For example, are you happy with the Pentagon CCTV footage they released? Does it show a plane to you? Rhetorical questions, as no, there is no plane
in the video. However, the 1000's, not 2 or 3 who saw a jet I think I will believe. There is no jet because it was not captured based on the time
frame. No conspiracy it is how they(security footage) are made.

Are you happy that NIST said there was nothing about WTC7 that made them believe explosives were used? Yes, as NIST is not supposed to test for
explosives, that is the job if the FBI. If you don't know what NIST does then leave it alone.I am sorry, but there is no one on this site who can
tear apart the NIST report for what it is and that is an investigation to make sure, structurally, this does not happen again. They gave the
recommendations and the new WTC7 was built to its standards.

Are you happy NIST did not test for explosives at all? It is NOT the job of NIST to do that and there were no explosives needed nor is there ANY
physical evidence. I would pay anything to anyone to send me definiticve proof of explosives. If you are scared you might be killed, IM me and I will
take it to some government people I know and get it to the right people but it never happens. Conjecture and paint chips...

As you can see, all I said was that NIST did not do a thorough investigation, they did not cover al lthe evidence, and they did not deliver a
satisfactory report.
These are known facts, this is just highlighting that they did not do their job properly, and they have done a great job at discrediting
themselves.

I have not once said you do not understand physics, please quote where I said that?

What argument have I started? I started a discussion, and am not here to argue. I think I am quite fair with what I put across.
We have no conclusive proof who did 9/11, and when an official report leaves out a lot of crucial evidence then there will always be questions to ask
until they address their shortcomings.

So have you only watched just 10 minutes of the video? If you have then you cannot possible comment on it comprehensively, and if you have only
watched 10 mins of it, then you just wont get what his presentation is about. He is a historian, and he asks, how can we document the history of 9/11
when al lthe evidence has not been investigated, and the investigation is biased. That is not all he addresses.

There are not 1000+ witnesses that saw a plane at the pentagon, if there is can you link me to the 1000+ testimonies please?

I'm not saying that people did not see a plane, the mystery surrounding the pentagon is, did a plane hit the pentagon. It is plausible that a plane
did a flyover and a missile struck the pentagon, I personally find that theory more acceptable than the official report that says a plane crashed into
it.

This is just my opinion, and many other people has similar opinions. I'm not saying this is fact, but if we had all the CCTV footage, then we could
possibly clear this matter up.

If you want to believe there is no plane in the CCTV because of the frame rate, then that is up to you, but there should be other video footage from
other sources available, which should show a plane if one hit the pentagon, but we are still waiting for these videos to be released.

NIST stated in their technical questions video, that they did not test for explosives because they did not see any evidence to believe explosives were
used, so if NIST state this themselves, then why do you think NIST is not supposed to test for explosives?

They made it seem in their video that they would have tested if they felt it was required, so, you are wrong to say that they are not supposed to test
for them. This clearly shows I do know what NIST should do, they stated it themselves, they never mentioned the FBI like you have, and I will post
that video if you really want me to!

If no one can tear apart the NIST report, then why are there many people doing just that?

If you most people WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, even the reporters live on air said that it looked like a controlled demolition, then
NIST should have at least done some tests. It's failings like these that lose NIST credibility. They could not even answer David Chandler's question
about freefall in the live questions. They lost more credibility when they couldn't answer that very question. Again, it's all in the same video,
and coincidentally, they removed that video from their website. Luckily it is hosted in other places on the internet.

Why do you keep saying it is not NIST's job to test for explosives, when they clearly say they would have tested for them if they thought there was a
need, that in itself confirms they would have tested for them, and therefore is their job to test for them if they suspected they were used.

Why would I be scared that I would be killed?! There are many people discussing the same things as me, are 'they' whoever 'they' are going to kill
everyone on the internet discussing the same thing? Millions of people?!

The building looked like a controlled demolition, it fell at freefall speed, and no steel framed building had fallen due to fire before, which NIST
even state themselves. Eye witnesses reported explosions at WTC7, and in my eyes that should be enough to investigate if explosives were used.

Unfortunately I cannot provide any physical evidence of explosives because I had no access to the building post-collapse, NIST did however, and they
chose not to look for explosives. If an independent investigation team could have has access to the rubble, then a thorough investigation could have
been done, but NIST only did a part-investigation, and it took them 7 years to investigate it, and in those 7 years they basically hardly did
anything. It was a poor report, and one that still needs further investigation.

It seems clear you buy everything that the offical reports tell you, and don't care for all the missing evidence from those reports?

Originally posted by esdad71
Pick one. I challenged you, that is not pussying out. You called someone out and now you need to put up.

This is not just about him lying, it is about what he is promoting. The whole thing is a lie if you want the truth. I asked you to pick one of the
subjects you agree with him on. You deflected.

You are not backing the substance of what he says only if he is lying or not. Pick a topic, let's debate one on one or you simply are scared. I have
asked you twice now....

You are the one not "backing up the substance of what you say".

You listed the headlines from the presentation. Where exactly are the lies in the headlines? Are you trying to tell us that Abel Danger or Operation
Northwoods are lies? If so we don't even have to continue our conversation here. I assume you finish school before we go on.

Because they were being asked questions that may pertain to national security.

This is a fair response, although they could have perhaps done it in two stages, the first stage containing non-national security information, and
then a second stage that was kept private with the sensitive data kept away from the public.

National security was actually non-exisitent on 9/11, so whatever would have been said would have not put America under any threat, because it seems
people can infiltrate their security quite easily without data relating to national security.

What sort of questions do you think might have needed to be kept from the American public?

I'd love to at least see a transcript, even if the national security questions are blacked out.

Also, for the record, I do not buy the 9/11 story myself so please do not think I am a Bush tit sucking conservative who hates Muslims. 93 is the
coverup and as soon as you guys stop dicking around with the towers something might come out but right now you are only doing what they want which is
what makes the "truther' so comical. It is you that perpetuates the lies and does not allow the truth.

You do realise that if you are stating you do not buy the 9/11 story, then you are considered a truther too?

If you do not buy it, then why are you so vigourously defending it?

What are you, a truther, or an OS'er? You can't be both!

When you say 93, do you mean flight 93 or the 93 bombings?

It's all relevant in finding the truth, there are problems in all areas of the OS, which need addressing in a fresh independent investigation.
Focusing on just one aspect of 9/11 will not solve the crime, when investigating 9/11, all of it needs investigating, not just one element.

How about I won't watch the video because I don't feel like sifting through the BS? Does that one work?

Yeah. Let's deal with straight out facts and not have to go through an entire investigation just to get the bare bones and incongruencies.

You cannot make a fair judgement on the video if you do not watch it can you?!

If you don't want to watch it then you are free to not comment in the thread, because if you do not watch it then you can have nothing to say about
it!

You have no idea what the concept of the video is, it's a very interesting video, it does not say who is or who is not responsible, it presents real
known facts, and leaves it to the viewer to come to their own conclusions.

It's an interesting presentation, from the position of a historian. He asks, how as historians can they document 9/11 when there is so much
conflicting information on 9/11, and so much important evidence missing, and it covers many more things than that.

If you are interested in 9/11 then just watch it, it's not trying to sell you anything, and it sounds like you've already decided that it was not an
inside job, so there is nothing to be afraid of!

Pick one. I challenged you, that is not pussying out. You called someone out and now you need to put up.

This is not just about him lying, it is about what he is promoting. The whole thing is a lie if you want the truth. I asked you to pick one of the
subjects you agree with him on. You deflected.

You are not backing the substance of what he says only if he is lying or not. Pick a topic, let's debate one on one or you simply are scared. I have
asked you twice now....

He is just presenting the facts, have you catually watched the video?

He isn't trying to make people's minds up for them, he is a historian, covering the history before, during and after 9/11, and asks how can he/they
as historians, document 9/11 with so much conflicting information, and so much evidence that has not been investigated.

You say you do not buy the OS, and so are therefore a truther, and as a truther who has an interest in 9/11, then you would want to watch this because
it is quite an intersting presentation.

OS'er or truther, either way it's an interesting video, nothing to be scared of, no need to get worked up over it!

There's a difference between civilian speculation, and a solid case led by a legal team.

What civillians are you talking about, and what legal team are you referring to?

Are you saying that civillians cannot be equally as qualified as NIST?

If there was an indepenmdent investigation made up of experts in different fields, there is no reason why they could not do a better job than NIST.

There are many experts out there that have provided data that shows NIST have not done their job properly.

If 9/11 was an inside job, then a report by a goverment agency will naturally try and cover that up, hence why a team of designated experts need to do
an independent investigation for the American people.

Why would anyone disapprove of a thorough investigation by independent experts to provide an alternative report to NIST, FEMA & the 9/11 commision,
which covers all the areas they did, and all the evidence they failed to investigate?

If there is nothing to hide, then independent investigation would be welcomed.

The FBI alone spent upwards of 70 million dollars on its investigation. Toss in the CIA, NSA, and the DoD. Add in numerous local agencies. Dont
forget the money spent by the engineering studies. Finally, the 14 million spent by the 9/11 Commission......it adds up to a heck of a lot more than
was spent on Whitewater.

48:24 "This people come forward and say there were explosives bang bang" No sir, they didn't.

48:48 Thermite in the dust - I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. The refutation was not out at the time of this "investigation".

Ok... i got to the BBC report and had enough. This video is nothing but a power point presentation that could have been read by anyone that got all
their information from ANY conspiracy theory website. (including this one)

The FBI alone spent upwards of 70 million dollars on its investigation. Toss in the CIA, NSA, and the DoD. Add in numerous local agencies. Dont
forget the money spent by the engineering studies. Finally, the 14 million spent by the 9/11 Commission......it adds up to a heck of a lot more than
was spent on Whitewater.

48:24 "This people come forward and say there were explosives bang bang" No sir, they didn't.

48:48 Thermite in the dust - I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. The refutation was not out at the time of this "investigation".

Ok... i got to the BBC report and had enough. This video is nothing but a power point presentation that could have been read by anyone that got all
their information from ANY conspiracy theory website. (including this one)

edit on 9-7-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

You're taking some of this out of context, he touched on conspiracies, and conspiracy theories, he explores the meanings of each, and he provided
those clips to show how they could, or could not be interpretted, he never said either were true, and he never said they were false.

This is why this is a good video, he presents some of the things that are out there, but never says these types of things are right, or wrong.

They should be looked into, they should be included, because the very nature of his presentation is, with so many different ideas, theories and facts,
how as a historian, is he or anyone able to document what really happned on 9/11 accurately, especially when there are way too many unawsered
questions.

Perhpas you skipped through the presentation, and missed a lot of vital information? Or perhaps you just do not get what the presentation is actually
about?

So if you are going to comment on the video, then please comment accurately and in context because you are presenting what was in the presentation in
a false manner.

The FBI alone spent upwards of 70 million dollars on its investigation. Toss in the CIA, NSA, and the DoD. Add in numerous local agencies. Dont
forget the money spent by the engineering studies. Finally, the 14 million spent by the 9/11 Commission......it adds up to a heck of a lot more than
was spent on Whitewater.

If the OS is in question, then any official figures would also be in question.

Logical Fallacy - Poisoning the Well. Try to address the fact. The Penttbomb was the largest investigation BY FAR than any other investigation in FBI
history. You will have to prove that they are being disingenuous with their data.

48:24 "This people come forward and say there were explosives bang bang"

Did the firefighters really say that? No.

What investigation did he accomplish? NADA ... he pretty much took foot notes from every leading truther out there and threw them on a PP
Presentation. He offered nothing new.

It's an independent historical investigation. I think you are totally missing the concept of the video.

He showed videos of explosive bangs, he mentioned people had heard explosions, he showed a video of firemen talking about secondary explosions, in
fact 3 explosions just from those firefighters, and then went on to say NIST did not look for explosives at all.

He was presenting different facts froms all sides, which is something NIST did not do, and he asks, who are we to believe? How do we document history
when there are many different accounts, and a report that does not consider all the evidence!

It was a history of 9/11 from the angle of a historian, it was not meant to offer anything new, but he presented it in a new way, never siding with
inside job, or terrorists.

It's how you are interpretting it that is the problem, if you did watch it all then you will know why he presents the information the way he does!

If the OS is in question, then any official figures would also be in question.

Logical Fallacy - Poisoning the Well. Try to address the fact. The Penttbomb was the largest investigation BY FAR than any other investigation in FBI
history. You will have to prove that they are being disingenuous with their data.

Why is it a fallacy?

I said 'IF', so if the OS is in question, which it is by many people, then thsoe same people will question everything they are told relating to 9/11
that is presented by the government. That stands to reason.

You only have a piece of data presented to you by a government who's actions are constantly under suspicion, how you take that information is up to
you. You are free to believe everything they tell you, that is your right, but there are so many people all over the world that do not trust the
American government.

Although it has not been proven in an American court that the governemnt were involved in 9/11, it certainly is the belief of many people based on
many factors that we discuss here daily, and also because of many other factors throughout history.

So if people think the American governement are not to be trusted, they will also think that these figures can be fabricated.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.